Odisha landowners can apply offline for plot demarcation and pay only the Rule 38 fee, Orissa High Court rules

The petitioner-deity, through its trustee, sought demarcation of 11 plots recorded in its name, alleging encroachment and unauthorised use of parts of the land.

The Tahasildar did not accept its offline application, requiring the petitioner to apply online; the portal required separate applications and fees for each plot.

The petitioner challenged Government notifications dated 14 February 2020 and 15 October 2025, which provided for online applications and user charges of ₹800, and sought acceptance of its application under Rule 38 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (OSS Rules).

The State contended that Rule 38 concerned measurement in mutation cases, while the ₹800 charge was a separate user charge for engaging licensed surveyors.

Whether Rule 38 of the OSS Rules applies to measurement or demarcation of land sought by a recorded tenant, or is confined to measurement in mutation proceedings.

Whether the State could require online filing and impose user charges of ₹800 per plot through executive instructions, notwithstanding the fee prescribed by Rule 38.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have its offline application accepted and its plots demarcated upon payment of the Rule 38 fee.

Rule 38 of the OSS Rules prescribes a fee of ₹4 for each plot covered by measurement or field enquiry; Rules 35–38 form part of the chapter concerning maintenance of records of rights and maps, with Rule 35 providing for registration of proceedings under that chapter as mutation cases.

Sections 2(11) and 3 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act define survey broadly and empower the Government to order surveys, including on specified requests and subject to payment of costs; the Court distinguished that statutory survey process from an individual application for demarcation.

Under Articles 13 and 265 of the Constitution, executive instructions cannot override statutory rules, and a fee must have statutory authority; executive instructions may supplement, but not supplant, the law.

The Court relied on Narendra Kumar Maheswari v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2138, for the principle that executive instructions cannot supplant statutory provisions.

The Court read Rule 38 in the context of Rules 35–37 and held that its separate measurement fee concerned physical measurement of land—i.e., demarcation—not merely a step in correcting records through mutation.

It rejected the State’s reliance on Sections 2(11) and 3 of the Act, finding that those provisions address a broader survey ordered by the Government and do not govern an individual’s demarcation application.

The 2016 guidelines and the 2025 SOP themselves referred to Rule 38, undermining the State’s contention that the Rule did not apply to demarcation.

Although the State could offer online filing and licensed surveyors as an alternative service, it could not make that mode exclusive or impose an additional ₹800 charge on applicants seeking demarcation under Rule 38 without amending the Rules.

The notifications dated 14 February 2020 and 15 October 2025 may operate as an optional alternative for applicants who choose the licensed-surveyor service and agree to pay its user charges; they cannot compel online filing or charges exceeding Rule 38 for applicants using the statutory route.

The Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, was directed to accept the petitioner’s offline application on payment of the Rule 38 fee and complete demarcation, after notice to affected parties, within four weeks.

The State was also directed to modify the portal to permit one application for multiple plots under the same khata.